FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 20 Nov 2019, 03:41

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Extra Smileys: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/misc.p ... _Editor_QR

Not moderated, so you are on your own. Spambots, stalkers and anti-semites will be banned without notice. Else, POLICE YOURSELF.



Post a reply
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 150000 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
Options:
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
DM me in twitter if you have:
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - The Emaculate Conception
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: The Immaculate Conception, debate  Reply with quote
As you know, some atheists are really annoying and belligerent without cause, just as some Christians are. Click here for a related Disqus thread arguing against the Virgin Birth, run by a very belligerent guy who wants to claim that the scholars don't know what or when it was.

As you all might know, I've already made extensive videos on this, and the main house for the material is in PassPlot.htm. But I am not allowed to post evidence links in Disqus to back up statements made, as somehow they deem that self-promotion (why, I don't know). So here I link that discussion, so if you wish to 'reply' to it with links but cannot do so THERE, you can easily do so without censorship, here.

I don't know how long that Disqus thread will continue.

So here are my last posts in it, in case the moderator removes it, starting with what seems to be him posting under another nickname, for context:

Walternator wrote:
First, it's not my article, and the "factual" would tend to support it. Yeah, I went and watched one of your repeat after me sessions on you tube, and I gotta tell you, I wasn't all that impressed. You seem more obsessed with bat chit minutia, than scholarly. I think I'll stick with the majority of Biblical scholars for truth, but If I want a dissenting view from the cheap seats, I'll come find you.

brainout wrote:
I've done 1500+ videos in both Youtube and vimeo, on a wide range of topics from mere audio for the young ones, to sophisticated live onscreen BIBLE Hebrew and Greek exegetical meter stuff even the scholars are just now trying to understand: they've been debating Bible meter, for about 300 years.

However, none of that is relevant to your objection nor my statement: the FACTS are that the documentation regarding the Virgin Birth is well known and for CENTURIES. I'm sorry you cannot read the Greek of Luke 1:26-36, to see it for yourself.

I too made videos documenting all that, but will not provide links as it won't matter what I say, you want to call it wrong. That is your prerogative.

Mine, is to cease posting, when it is clear no amount of factual presentation, will be considered. Thank you for your time.

Walternator wrote:
"the FACTS are that the documentation regarding the Virgin Birth is well known and for CENTURIES." Well known, yes, facts, not so much. You should be apologizing to everyone for wasting their time by self promoting your you tube nonsense, at our expense.

brainout wrote:
On the contrary, I linked to this Disqus thread in my frankforum, where many who can read the Hebrew and Greek, come to read and discuss. The fact you cannot do so, is lamentable but that's again your prerogative. Good bye.
Post Posted: 01 Dec 2015, 18:24
  Post subject:  Re: The Emaculate Conception  Reply with quote
I learned this after some time debating with Catholics. The Catholic version is convoluted. They say that God first made Mary to become sinless, and then she gave birth to Jesus who was sinless as a result.
Post Posted: 20 Oct 2015, 22:55
  Post subject:  Removed by author.  Reply with quote
Removed by author.
Post Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 15:58
  Post subject:  Re: The Emaculate Conception  Reply with quote
D'accord. Actually, it's termed both ways: Immaculate MARY conception (Catholic) and Immaculate CHRIST conception (Protestant). But somehow your original question was worded so well, I knew you meant the Catholic flavor, but I added in, the Protestant one. :mrgreen:

That's why I'm snickety about source text. Religion wants to recolor, mash, rehash, slice and dice out of existence, any source text. The Bible was kidnapped by Mother Church for the better part of 1000 years.

So look: either Bible is true or not. Either God exists, or not. And if exists, commissioned the Bible or not, depending on what books one even CALLS 'Bible' (for that's disputed, too). None of those are religious questions. They are instead, factual questions. True, or not True. 0 or 1.

So I stick with the source text, and therefore the first question is DOES GOD EXIST, and if yes, WHICH TEXT is His. After that, it becomes more routine to look at the text and see what it says. It, not some religious body. :lol:
Post Posted: 31 Aug 2015, 05:21
  Post subject:  Removed by author.  Reply with quote
Removed by author.
Post Posted: 31 Aug 2015, 05:01
  Post subject:  Re: The Immaculate Conception  Reply with quote
Well, it's a Catholic term, kinda misleading, should be called 'The Virgin Pregnancy' of Mary. Meiosis and polar body, splitting of the chromosomes, so who provides the other 26? In normal conception, the man's sperm. But here it's a miracle, so those chromosomes are provided by the Holy Spirit, per Luke 1:35.

Some Christians are very uncomfortable just accepting it's a miracle. But if God, then well He does miracles, believe it or not. So the alternative 'natural' explanations (like parthenogenesis) for how a virgin can conceive and bear a child, are not claimed by Scripture. It's accepted prima facie or not, that's one's own prerogative.

That she was unmarried and a virgin at the time, made the pregnancy a scandal. Therefore, news would spread like wildfire. Even by John 8 when the Lord was teaching, He was dogged by it, the Pharisees calling him in essence 'illegitimate', for of course it's impossible to believe His Birth was as foretold in Scripture, a miracle (presume you know the passages, if not, let me know). Waiting 2000 years for a promised event, and it occurs, won't exactly engender immediate acceptance, naturlich. :roll:

So the Catholics kinda didn't understand Bible very well, and somewhere along the line came up with the term 'Immaculate Conception' to claim that MARY was sinless, since they couldn't understand how Christ could be sinless at birth. Which is contradicted in her own mouth in her Magnificat, Luke 1:47, extensively covered in the Greek, see vid descriptions' pdf starting here. All the NT meter tracks back at this speech; drives me crazy. But even in English you can tell that if she calls God her Savior, she's calling herself a sinner. So no, MARY didn't need to be immaculate. But then, they couldn't see the chromosomes splitting, could they. What else would the Catholics do, but guess?

So: It's kinda funny, how the 'Life of Mary' book explains it all. My copy is from Cardinal Stritch , part of the Catholic Library of Devotion, not a public book but very commonly given to and among Catholics, so maybe your local parish has a copy. I show my personal set (given to me by a family member), in a video, here. Youtube counterpart is here.

Sorry the vids are so grainy. I had to place the Catholic books on my flatbed scanner, and the photos are kinda wonky. But I have the books if there's something in them you want to know.

Did this answer help? Yell at me if not! Image
Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015, 11:57
  Post subject:  The Emaculate Conception  Reply with quote
Removed by author.
Post Posted: 28 Aug 2015, 10:42

All times are UTC


Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited